New Thoughts (06/23/10-06/26/10)
I think, looking at my notes, that I shall arrange my thoughts in rather the reverse order of the text before me. It would be difficult for anybody to read the various translations on this passage and not notice the debated passage that spans verses 55 and 56. Does it belong or doesn’t it? This is made the more difficult in that some of the most trusted translations keep it, even while noting it’s questionable pedigree. These same translations, however, reject the addition at verse 54, explaining the allusion to Elijah, which appears to be derived from the very same source documents, if I understand correctly. At the same time, other equally careful translations reject the passage. Indeed, the majority of translations seem to have removed the words of Jesus’ rebuke.
I am hardly fit to weigh in on the rightness or wrongness of these decisions. I do, however, find it curious. I also find a larger question for myself, which is whether the presence of Jesus’ words really changes the power of the scene. If I might put it differently, is there anything in what He says in His rebuke that would seem necessary to explain why Luke would include the event in his record? What I find initially is that the words of that rebuke are so familiar that it would seem if they were not spoken here, we would be left wondering where they had got off to. Perhaps this is the reasoning behind translations such as the NASB and NKJV, which keep the passage yet note it’s debatable validity. Concordance searches will continue to show it up, and the student can then, having read it, learn also that it may not be an accurate reading.
Does this matter? I think it does. Considering the great familiarity of this verse, let me ask this: Why is it familiar? Indeed, why is this whole story so familiar? Is it not largely because of the words attributed to Jesus here? “I did not come to destroy, but to save.” Let me briefly contrast that with other things Jesus says He did or did not come to do. He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). He did not come to call the righteous, but to reach the sinners (Mt 9:13, Mk 2:17). He did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword and division (Mt 10:34, Lk 12:51), to set family members against one another (Mt 10:35, Lk 12:52). He came for ‘this hour’, the hour of judgment (Jn 12:27). But, He did not come to judge the world, rather to save it (Jn 12:47).
The larger scope of declared purpose does not preclude what He is said to have said here, but it certainly provides a degree of balance to it. True, He has not come with all-out judgment and condemnation (for we must understand that judgment, in this case, implies the verdict of guilt). He seeks to save all who are His own, but salvation is to be no more global in nature than is judgment. It’s not the peace that comes of a creation wholly right with God once more. It’s division. It’s a mission to separate the sheep from the goats, and make sure the sheep realize there’s a difference.
It strikes me that the reason this current verse is so well known to us is that it lacks that counter-balance of limits and judgment. Therefore, it becomes a popular text to promote the idea of universal salvation. It’s right up there in the ranks of those proof texts that are offered to support the idea that everybody shall be saved, that God insists it shall be so. But, He clearly doesn’t. Even looking at the other mission statements I just went through makes that clear. If it didn’t, experience ought to. Clearly, not everybody gets saved. Yet, if God’s will does not fail of His purposes, how can this be? There are only two ways to answer that. God’s will does fail when man (a being so weak he can’t even counter the devil) opposes His will. That’s one possibility, and it is the necessary conclusion to be reached by those who insist man’s free will is involved in the choice of being saved. The other possibility is that His will, perfect and good though it be, does not insist that all shall be saved, indeed, declares that He shall have compassion solely where He so chooses. You tell me which is consistent with both Scripture and the necessary attributes of one who would be God.
So, perhaps we would be well served to remove the debated passage from sight. You know, when I went to select the key verse for this passage, my eyes naturally went to that very verse. But, if one supposes it might not actually be there, what becomes the key message of this whole thing? For my part, I see it as being verse 53: They rejected Him because He was pursuing His purpose. The point of this whole event is the rejection.
If I take in from that perspective, does it then make sense that Luke would feel the episode worth noting in his history? I think it does. For, that rejection serves as a foreshadowing of things to come, the very purpose for which Jesus has set His face. But, I want to save that particular topic for a bit. What I would say at this point is that such a foreshadowing would make sense if this text were clearly part of the final trip to Jerusalem, as I have considered it to be. I must note, though, that Luke seems to have the event placed rather earlier in the ministry, shortly after the Transfiguration. That event, it is true, would explain the sudden zeal and confidence in these two disciples. For my own part, I’m not so sure that association with the Transfiguration requires that we place it earlier in the record. True, Luke covers a lot of territory between Transfiguration and the final trip to Jerusalem, but I’m not certain that these are organized chronologically. Be that as it may, the message of rejection rings clear with or without the debated passage, perhaps more clearly without. But, it is there either way.
Now, as to the rebuke, Wuest’s translation has this odd rendering of verse 55. “He rebuked them, the rebuke however being ineffectual.” I would note that not so much as one other translation or paraphrase supports this additional point. Indeed, of the three lexicons I tend to use, only one, that of Zhodiates, makes a similar association. Even there, it is but one sense of the word. He does actually work that point quite a bit, noting that it could either be due to the innocence of the one thus rebuked, or the ineffectual nature of the rebuke itself. Now, that this is Jesus we are dealing with ought to lead us to be rather dubious as to the possibility of an ineffectual rebuke coming from that source. If He wished to rebuke to the point of conviction, He would most certainly do so, and the one rebuked would be quite clear on the matter. Neither was He likely to be rebuking one who was innocent of His charges. That’s just not going to happen.
The only sense in which I can see this rebuke as ‘ineffectual’ is in that it was not intended to bring that sort of conviction that would be associated with a legal proceeding. We are not in a legal proceeding, and it strikes me that the use of this term with that idea of being ineffectual is a matter for the courts. Did the prosecutor make his case, and was the defendant actually guilty of the charges? If the answer to either of these is no, then any rebuke in the prosecutor’s pursuit of his case will prove to be ineffectual. But, here we are more in a classroom than a courtroom. It is a teachable moment, and the Teacher avails Himself of it. The rebuke is delivered to correct, not to condemn. That is the distinction we ought to feel in the choice of words here. Jesus is not out to find cause to reject His disciples for their failure to properly understand the kingdom. He is out to teach them the true understanding.
I’ll just note that the words of rebuke are in keeping with this view, if we choose to include them. The kingdom isn’t about that! I’m not here to deliver the wrath of God, but the mercy. You who represent Me must learn this. If you are to be My ambassadors, then you must learn to function from the foundation of My love. If you would be defenders of My truth, which you surely should be, then you must learn from Me how to hold to the Truth without entering into wrathful debates.
Oh! How this lesson rings down through the ages! Paul makes this explicit demand of his own students, as we read in 1Corinthians 13. It’s worthless to move in the gifts of heaven, to demonstrate the power of heaven, if you don’t operate from the motive of heaven. I consider that warning from Revelation 13:13-14, how the very enemy of God will come down with signs and wonders just like those James and John speak of here. These enemy agents will come. They will even take on the guise of angels of light. They will be able to demonstrate the gifts to the satisfaction of many an incurious observer. They will be full of signs and wonders. But, these are not the proofs, folks! These are not the guarantee of authenticity. Indeed, it is because so many who call themselves believers but do not heed the admonishment to study and know the Truth, that they come with such false evidence. Were it not sufficient to fool many, there would be no reason for them to do such things. But, many will see the manifestations and consider it proof enough. The proof is not in power nor in prophecy nor in any such thing. The proof is in the heart, the motive, the alignment with the real spirit and purpose of God.
Don’t you see, that’s exactly why the rebuke is necessary. Forget the words of the debated passage. What were James and John suggesting? Shall we pray for revenge, Lord? Shall we slay these infidels for you? You know, we have a religion around today that thinks this way, but it’s not the religion God advocates. It is a doctrine of devils that suggests the way to spread God is to kill all opposition. Some would like to argue that this is precisely what was going on in the Old Testament, but that is a misunderstanding of the history. That is, however, a topic I am not going to wander into here.
But, look: It’s the nature of man, particularly the male of the species, to get up in arms when opposed. There’s a territorialism in us, a need to not only be right but be acknowledged as right. There’s a need for honor. I could point out that this is particularly strong in the culture of the Middle East. But, we’re not that much different. We, too, can become zealous beyond all valid reason. We, too, are ready to fight for what’s right, and to “whoop the guy what says it isn’t so.” There may be a time and a place for such response, but it’s not as representatives of the Gospel of Christ. Behold, the great good news! The God of all Creation is determined to save you from your sins, from yourselves! Now, then: If you won’t accept this marvelous gift from His hand, I’m gonna beat you to a pulp! Yeah, I could see where that’s not going to be the best advertising campaign.
The point, however, is that it’s a horrible misrepresentation of God. And, that’s what we are called to be: representations of God. We were made in His image, but we marred that a long time ago. So, He comes and reconstructs us, puts us back in proper order, that we may, by our example, demonstrate to the other cracked mirrors around us just what it is man was meant to be. By our example, we can and should demonstrate (as Table Talk began exploring today) a joy that is not just a reaction to circumstances of life. We can and should demonstrate a love that is not intrinsically tied to self interest and self validation. We can and should demonstrate a lifestyle that, while willing and able to enjoy the good gifts of this earthly existence, is focused first, foremost and exclusively on heaven. We are called to be a people of purpose – God’s purpose. We are called to be directed by Him, set in position by Him, serving Him, fulfilling His commands for us. Zeal will not do it. Zeal has a bad habit of not waiting for instruction. Zeal is an emotional response to stimuli, with reason gone.
God has never once called upon His children to set reason aside. He has called them to seek greater wisdom that reason may have the best material to work with. What we see of James and John here is that they have not understood the kingdom yet. This was clear when they sought privilege for themselves. It was clear when John rebuked the preacher that wasn’t part of their group for daring to use Jesus’ name. There’s plenty of zeal to be seen in this, plenty of fiery devotion to Jesus. But, there’s also a complete lack of understanding. This isn’t what it’s about, guys. This isn’t about membership in some exclusive club from which we must work to keep out the riff raff. This isn’t an earthly kingdom to be established by earthly means and administrated by earthly means. Really, it’s not about Israel anymore. It’s bigger, much bigger.
What happens with James and John is that they get caught up in the emotional response to the situation. They are ruled by their emotions, led by their emotions. The answer to this is not to become emotionless, but to relegate the emotions to secondary status. They must be taken captive to faith and reason, just as Paul tells us to take every vain imagination captive. The emotional response is the lifeblood of vain imagination! Look at where it leads these two. Oh! Oh! Let’s call down fire. We’d be just like Elijah! Wouldn’t that be cool, Lord? Can we do it? Huh? Huh? Can we? You will say that I give these two less respect than I ought, that their motives were higher than that, a desire to defend and avenge the Lord. Perhaps so. Yet, that is no less an emotional reaction, and no more worthy of praise.
First off, to suppose that God needs our defending is pretty silly. He Who is your strong tower against the enemy needs you to be His shield wall? I think not. The Judge of all creation needs you to serve as His attorney? Unlikely. Indeed, when you think about that idea, it sneaks right up to the thought of man being greater than God again. And to avenge Him? But, “Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.” We all know that. They both knew that. Vengeance is not something to be taken in hand by man. I grant that He has oft times appointed men of His choosing to be the instruments of that vengeance. Of course, you will need to grant hat quite often these were not godly men He chose. But, in this case, He is here, physically present among them. They are certain He is a king, certain He shall turn out to be some sort of great military hero. And yet, they think He needs this sort of stuff from them?
This is interesting. That zealous response sounds so defensible, especially given who it’s coming from. I mean, we know somewhat about these guys, or at least suppose we do. God chose them, after all, so they can’t be all that bad, right? Oh, wait. His choice isn’t really about our finer qualities, is it? No, if they weren’t all that bad it’s because of His reformatting of their thoughts and attitudes. It’s because He tempered their zeal with the Truth that we have come to think of them as great men rather than great fools.
Zeal without understanding: what a terribly dangerous thing it is. Yet, how many speak zealously for the Truth today without really understanding Truth? It’s possible I am even to be counted in that number, in spite of everything.
If that be the case, I pray God will correct me, bring me back to balance. Truly, I know I can become fired up over some points of doctrine, and I know full well that I can approach the issue angrily when faced with somebody who should know better but doesn’t. This is clearly not the Way. Father, forgive Me, that I have thus represented You, thus thought to defend You. Yet, as You have shown me by other means, there is that equally dangerous place of being all thought and no feeling at all, certain of the Truth but not really impacted by it. What was it I read this morning? “Anyone can believe in God, it takes real faith to believe God.” To know Your Truth is one thing – a pleasure and a challenge, to be sure. To live it? It is beyond me, except You bring it to life in me. So, Lord, let that be the way of it. Let Your Truth so dwell in me as to infect both thought and feeling, mind and heart. Let Your reality besiege my senses as I surrender to Your will and Your way.
Continuing to work backward, let me stop at the reason for the outburst from these two brothers. The Son of Man had been rejected by this particular Samaritan village. As I have already noted in passing, this rejection serves to foreshadow the much greater rejection to come in Jerusalem. It is fitting that Luke’s coverage of this resolute journey to Jerusalem to face that rejection should begin with rejection. This is, after all, the prophetic path for the man of sorrows. He was despised, forsaken of men who hid their faces from Him, for they had no esteem for Him (Isa 53:3). Thus far in the record, there have actually been many accolades for Jesus, at least outside of official circles. This continues in some degree right up to His entry into the city. Yet, rejection is there, as we see in this case.
Consider that Jesus, while He has not yet authorized His disciples to take the Gospel to Samaria, has done so Himself. There is, of course, that woman at the well (Jn 4). There is the very fact that He has shown Himself willing to travel through that land, which other Jews would have refused to do. There is His positive comparison of the Samaritan as over against priest and Levite (Lk 10:33). There is His willingness to heal the Samaritan leper (Lk 17:16). Now, the temporal relationship of these events to the current is open to debate, but the juxtaposition of the two is not. Whether we see the Samaritan rejection as coming in spite of what Jesus had done, or whether we see Jesus doing as He does in spite of their rejection, the two remain somehow connected.
There is another aspect of these events that comes to mind, though, and that is the way these events echo the story of Shimei. Consider that story briefly. Shimei had come out specifically to curse King David as David was being forced to depart Jerusalem ahead of Absalom’s arrival (2Sa 16:5-8). One of David’s men was ready to put an end to this cursing descendent of Saul (2Sa 16:9). Zeal and defense! Let the king’s honor be undisturbed. But, note David’s response: “If he curses, and the Lord has told him to curse me, then who shall ask why he has done so? Let him alone, for the Lord has told him” (2Sa 16:10-11).
Again, as they later return to Jerusalem, there is Shimei, in this case seeking forgiveness for his previous outburst. Again, there is Abishai, the same who would have him killed before, ready to strike him down now (2Sa 19:16-21), and again, David rejects the thought. “Why should he be put to death? Don’t I know myself king of Israel today” (2Sa 19:22)? His pride doesn’t need bolstering, nor his reputation protecting. Nothing good shall be served by this man’s death, however wrong he has been.
Place John and James in the role of Abishai, and Jesus in the role of David, and the story is all but played out before our eyes here in Luke’s account. It has often been said that the life of Jesus recapitulates the history of Israel. This would seem another example of that idea. It might more properly be suggested that the history of Israel prefigured the life of Christ, just as the Temple and its practices stood in as a tutor until the fullness of the kingdom should come.
The reason I bring this up is twofold. First, as I recognize this connection to David’s story, it makes that much more sense that we find this event included in the Gospel record. It’s not just an explanation for how James and John came by their nickname. Indeed, it becomes clear that the connection of these events to their being called “sons of thunder” is not a connection made by Scripture. Mark notes the name, but not this event. Luke notes the event but not the name. Yet, mention the nickname and I doubt not that any reader of the Gospels will immediately have this “Let’s call down fire” moment in mind. It’s far less likely that they will consider the connections into the Old Testament that are contained in this moment.
That James and John were thinking of Elijah (assuming they were) may not jump out at us. That the whole flow of the event so echoes the tale of David and Shimei may not be immediately apparent either. But, let me explore that even a step farther. Consider that David was, at the point of Shimei cursing him, dealing with a usurper come to take his throne, in this case his own son, a man of his own household. Jesus, in many ways, is in the same position. The King of all kings and rightful Lord over all the earth finds his throne held by an enemy, and an enemy that, while not a son of the household, had been a trusted member of the court. He, too, faces cursing and rejection at the hands of His own subjects. “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree.” And here, in the rejection of this Samaritan village, is a foretaste of the cursing and rejection that awaits.
The parallelisms, I think, make it that much more plain why God considered David a man after His own heart. David set God’s purposes above his own personal reputation and honor. David recognized, as we ought also to do, that it is ever God’s Providence that drives and manages events. If it was to God’s good purpose that cursing should come then so be it. No sense striking down the vessel by which that cursing comes. After all, to do so would be to oppose the purpose of God, hardly a good place to be even in the best of times.
Jesus is in that same place. The destruction of those who reject Him has no place in the purposes of God who sent Him. That’s not what He has come for. That’s wrong thinking, come from a zealousness with no foundation of understanding. Yes, the kingdom is established, but not by such warfare as you suppose. Yes, there’s a usurper on the throne, but he shall not be deposed by bloody coup. The kingdom’s not like that, guys. We don’t battle against flesh and blood. My kingdom is not of this earth. My purpose is not such conquest as you suppose. I did not come to promote Israel, but to promote God.
Oh! Think about that angel that Joshua found himself confronted with. Are you for us or against us? No. But, I am for the Lord. He commands and it is Him I serve. Your fortunes and misfortunes frankly don’t enter into it. It is God’s Providence, God’s Purpose, and only that.
May we hear and be corrected! You think to command angels hither and yon at your bidding? Listen up! They don’t work for you. They may minister to you, but they don’t work for you. They are commanded by One and by One alone. Now, then. Let your attention be upon God Who reigns. If you would seek troops for your cause, seek first to ensure that your cause is His, then seek the Commander as to whether He would see fit to send His troops in support. Respect the heavenly chain of command, soldier! Assume not the privileges of a rank you do not hold. But, with prayer and thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to Him. And always, always, let the first of those request be for greater understanding of His plan and purpose.
This, then segues me quite nicely into my final point, which I shall take from the very start of the text. “He proceeded with fixed purpose.” This is the way in which the Weymouth translations presents the determination that was in Jesus as He turned His course towards Jerusalem. What a marvelous phrasing! And, let us immediately recognize why His purpose was so fixed. It is because He knows that His purpose is God’s purpose. He knows He is in alignment with the plan of heaven, and He will therefore suffer nothing to distract, dissuade or discourage. He will gladly suffer whatever must come, for come it must, so long as His purpose is in the service of God’s purpose.
Again, there is a strong connection to the Old Testament in this attitude. Let me take the example of Isaiah to make the point. “The Lord God helps Me, and therefore I am not disgraced. Therefore, I am set like flint in my determination, knowing I shall not be ashamed” (Isa 50:7). Note the reason and the result. It is because God helps him that he is firm in determination. Why does God help him? Because he is working for the purpose of God. What is the result? He is not disgraced, shall not be shamed. This is likewise true of Jesus as He makes His way to Jerusalem. This rejection by the Samaritans will bring no shame upon Him. He will not be disgraced by the judgment of the Sanhedrin. The mistreatment at the hands of Rome, even the ignominious death He shall suffer upon the cross: these things shall in no wise diminish His glory. Indeed, for all that the enemy plans to gloat in the outcome, these things will redound to His greater glory. For, He shall rise above. He shall face all of this and that which is far, far worse – the temporary loss of communion with Father – without complaint, without retaliation. And, He shall not only rise above, He shall conquer. He shall conquer not by violence and wrath, but by obedience and mercy. Isn’t that stunning? By willing submission to the plan of God, even at such inconceivably great cost to Himself, He achieved an eternal victory over every power, both of the earth, and of the spiritual realms!
Here, at the beginning of the journey, I should not think it surprising to learn that He spent much time meditating on just such messages as this. I know I shall not be ashamed, for the Lord God helps me. I am set like flint, knowing I labor in His purpose.
This really ought to be one of those, “This is my story,” moments. Is it? Am I in such a place, knowing so certainly that I am following His course, serving His purpose, that I have no least doubt, no least concern for self? I am not. There have been times when I felt such certainty, but this has not been such a season. I move tentatively, unsure of my decisions. But, I have yet this confidence, that He is working all things for my good, even my own mistakes. This promise I have from His Word, and there really isn’t much more I need. Sure and it would be nice to have a clearer view of the immediate plan. Sure and it would be nice to feel more secure in my means and mission. Times of change and uncertainty are never easy to deal with, and it would be wonderful to have God’s map laid before my eyes, so I could say with absolute resolve, “Thus sayeth the Lord, and thus we shall do.” But, He has not seen fit to make it so easy, and who am I to complain of it?
I shall simply resolve, as best I may, to remain ready and willing to say, “Thy will be done, Lord,” and know that all these other things shall be taken care of as He sees fit. It is enough. I shall not be ashamed.
